rweddy

A cared for 90's subaru will go 300k easy. My brothers 91 just hit 220k and he beats the living $%it out of it. You will be hooked on subarus from now on!!

MPG is base on vehicle weight, drag, gearing more than the AWD system. This is why a 91 2wd legacy/ and a 91 AWD legacy only differ 1-2mpg tops. You are not dealing with an old school 4wd system that is part-time. And even these vehicles differed little in MPG when you were in 2wd or 4wd. The loss of MPG had more to do with the weight, gearing, raised height, etc. Even if you put the fuse in you will see little or no gains in mpg. If this is such a big deal then sell you car and get a 2wd car or get a Subaru that is big more aerodynamic than the Forester. I get 28-30 mpg with my legacy outback.

Just my .02. My wife and I were in the same boat, we have owned 10 Subaru’s and lots of other vehicles. We ended trading our 40th Anniversary ed. Landcruiser for a 03 Honda Odyssey, best move we have ever done. We have a dedicated set of studded snow tires on this Honda and now it handles better in the snow than my outback does on its all-seasons. For getting kids in out, safety, dvd players, convince, etc. there is no caparison, plus the Hondas have 250hp so they are no slugs on the road.

Well said, there are HG issues with the 2.5 but not as bad as you would think from this board. I know of many 2.5 subarus into 200k with no hg issues at all.

Just my .02. I was involved in a low speed crash, 2-3 mph and both my bags went off. My insurance company has a lawsuit against Subaru at this time because of this issue. You might want to pull the fuse if you are really that worried about it.

I thought all 2.2 were non-interference??? So is my 96 2.2 Legacy Outback is non-interference, right? :-\

Is there a way to look at the engine and tell? I have a 96 Legacy OBW. 96 was the last year of non-interference motors to I believe.

96 5spd is a 2.2, last year of this. I get 28-30 mpg highway with mine.

You don't follow Toyota much then, all 90-96 3.0 had major HG issues, there was a national recall, and they are still having issues with HG blowing at low mileage on the newer 3.4 motors.

Have you actually checked the service intervals on the timing chains?? Most need to be replaced around 100k. I have owned several Toyotas, great cars and trucks; to replace the timing chain on my 4runner cost around $2500 parts and labor. It is a misconception that chains last forever, most need replacing. Yes this can be a longer interval than belts but they also cost much more and have issues with stretching that belts do not. And they is much more labor involved in replacing them. Also remember Toyota parts are very expensive. I paid $500 for an alternator on my truck. They are very well built vehicles but parts and service is very expensive. Good luck on whatever you choose. But I did hear a call on Car Talk where a woman got a matrix and did not like the buzziness of it and went out and got an outback and was much happier and my outback gets 28-30mpg!

Can someone look this up for me? 4S3BG4851T6379331 Thanks

Anyone out there ever done this? This is from a 96-99 legacy outback. I am wondering if I will be able to r&r this by just taking out all the parts under the glove box or will I need to take out the entire dash? Thanks

I would love to see the timing belt and clutch video.

I agree, also look in the classified, craigs lists, ebay, etc. How many 100+ mile domestics do you see there? Better yet how many 200+ do you see? But you will find subarus there all day long. I have taken all of my 10 subarus over 100k and several into the 200k with no major issues. Don’t believe everything you read.

What how can this be?? A 2.5 is a terrible engine that could never go over 100k!!! It is nice to finally hear someone talking good on the list besides me about the 2.5.

Actually 96-99 DOHC 2.5 had some HG issues. Not as bad as you see on this list but there can be issues, seems to be ok from 2000 up with SOHC 2.5.

Depends on your point of view. You can find hundreds of sites that state damage caused by them. I have not dog in this fight; I am just stating how I do not think 5hp gain is worth the possible damage and dirt/dust allowed into the oil system of the vehicle. Here are a few quotes from sites: A scientific test was done on TEST filters where air was loaded with ACCTD (some standardized "test dust" called AC Coarse Test Dust) and sucked through the TEST filter then through an analysis membrane. From the Quantity of dust injected and the amount that gets through the TEST filter and is then captured on the analysis membrane we can calculate the efficiency of the TEST filter in Question. BMW Stock Filter, Eff. Area of Media: 8.4 sq ft. K&N Replacement, Eff. Area of Media: 1.6 sq ft. The filters are the SAME size. They both fit in the STOCK BMW M3 airbox. The difference is that the STOCK filter has 65 pleats 1.5" deep and the K&N only 29 pleats each 0.75" deep. Now, remember this ratio: " 5.25:1". It's the ratio of the AREA of STOCK to K&N. It's very important and will come into play later. The STOCK filter efficiency started at 93.4% at 0 loading and increased to 99.2% efficiency as the loading increased to a max tested of 38.8 gm/sq ft of dust. The K&N filter efficiency started at 85.2% at 0 loading and increased to 98.1% at the max tested loading of 41.38 gm/sq ft. Now, I hear you. "Jim, that's only a FEW PERCENT". But is it? Let's look. If we had 100 grams of dust on a new BMW filter we would let through a total of 6.6 grams of dust in. If we used the new K&N filter we get 14.8 grams of dust. That's 224% (TWO HUNDRED TWENTY FOUR PERCENT!!) more dust ingested initially, stock vs. "free flow" and this ratio is pretty much held. Somewhere between 200-300% more dirt gets "ingested" anywhere across loading equivalence. The more INTERESTING thing is when you look at what happens to the DP or Differential Pressure at a constant airflow as you dirty both filters equally with time. The test used a rate of 75gr of dust per 20 min. Here's where the AREA difference comes MAJORLY into play. See, even though the BMW filter flows a bit less at the SAME loading, it also LOADS UP 5.25 times SLOWER due to it's LARGER effective area. So what happens is that the K&N initially flows better, but as the dirt continues coming in, the K&N eventually flows WORSE while still letting MORE dirt in. Now, does any of this additional dirt cause problems? I dunno. I suppose we could have a few people do some independent oil analyses on different motors using both K&Ns and Stock filters. Get enough of them, and you'd have a good statistical basis. For me though, it's simple: More DIRT = BAD. Another Example: I was responsible for evaluating re-usable air filters for a major construction/mining company that had hundreds of vehicles ranging from large earthmovers to pick-up trucks and salesmen's cars. This study was embarked upon due to the fact that we were spending upwards of $30,000 a MONTH on paper air filters. Using them one time then throwing them away.. I inititated the study in that I was convinced that a K&N type filter or oiled foam would save us many dollars per year in filter savings, man hour savings, and of course engines as these would filter dirt better than paper. (yes, I had read the K&N ads and was a believer) Representative test units were chosen to give us a broad spectrum from cars right through large front end loaders. With each unit we had a long history of oil analysis records so that changes would be trackable. Unfortunately, for me, every single unit having alternative re-usable air cleaners showed an immediate large jump in silicon (dirt) levels with corresponding major increases in wear metals. In one extreme case, a unit with a primary and secondary air cleaner, the secondary (small paper element) clogged before even one day's test run could be completed. This particular unit had a Cummins V-12 engine that had paper/paper one one bank and K&N/paper on the other bank; two completely independent induction systems. The conditions were EXACTLY duplicated for each bank yet the K&N allowed so much dirt to pass through that the small filter became clogged before lunch. The same outcome occured with oiled foams on this unit. We discontinued the tests on the large pieces almost immediately but continued with service trucks, formen's vehicles, and my own company car. Analysis results continued showing markedly increased wear rates for all the vehicles, mine included. Test concluded, switched back to paper/glass and all vehicles showed reduction back to near original levels of both wear metals and dirt. I continued with the K&N on my company car out of stubborness and at 85,000 miles the Chevy 305 V-8 wheezed its last breath. The top end was sanded badly; bottom end was just fine. End of test. I must stress that EVERYONE involved in this test was hoping that alternative filters would work as everyone was sick about pulling out a perfectly good $85 air cleaner and throwing 4 of them away each week per machine... So, I strongly suggest that depending upon an individual's long term plan for their vehicles they simply run an oil analysis at least once to see that the K&N or whatever alternative air filter is indeed working IN THAT APPLICATION... It depends on a person's priorities. If you want performance then indeed the K&N is the way to go but at what cost???

I am not disagreeing that there are performance gains with these filters. But what do you get 5-10 hp max? I run my cars to 200k and the additional particulates these filters allowing into the system, especially if you live in dusty or dirty road are not worth it for me personally. I am sure if you run these in urban only areas you could be fine but for me I drive a lot of dirt roads and we put sand down on the roads in winters so it is not worth the risk to me.

I agree totally. For the marginal if any performance gains they are not worth the wear. This is why HD Dodge and Chevy diesel engines void the warranty if you use them. Does not seam worth it to me.

Thanks for the correction!!

No it is not turbo, only touring wagons were turbo in 91.

http://www.subaruhighmileageclub.com Check this out, 2000 Outback legacy with over 800,000km (over 500,000 miles!)

Yep I had the same issue on my 92. I replaced it and was good to go.

Great idea!!! I would love to see this

I agree with you!! Keep the prices low!! I love the 96-99 Legacy OBW and know first hand of several in the 200k+ range with no issues.